'God' is Impossible

IOW, you don't see me as a person worth talking to.

:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

…Not if it is self-contradictory, which is the only way recognized to disprove a universal negative.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, they are guaranteed to be disturbed about the no-God discussion, yet, we are after truth, and that has a way of clashing with the imagined. Much of dogma has been disproved over the years, to the dismay of many believers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are simply maintaing an air of supremacy by refusing to actually get involved in the discussion.

 

Wrong yet again, as I was not available most of yesterday and today, and may soon be gone for the evening, which is unusual, but I will try to peek in. And the discussers are doing fine by extending the disproof by noting other compositional areas and the nature of composition.


Dismay…

Species were not made as is, immutable; the Earth is not flat; the Earth is not fixed in place; the Earth is not the center; the sky is not a dome or a fixed firmament; stars are not Heaven’s windows; 50 million species cannot fit in an Ark; etc.; and now the dogma of the notion of God Himself is seen to be self-contradictory.

What next!

Stay tuned.

And please continue to involve yourself in the discussion of the OP itself, as in the near future there will be even more disproofs supplied. It's fine to talk about me too.

 

I mean that even though you are here and post, you often do not address the comments and questions to your posts.

 

Sorry to be absent but I've replied to some, but haven't read them all in fine detail yet, as that's what it takes. Things like the future proofs coming was written many days ago.

I'll be back in the usual intensity that you're used to, and I wish everyone well, and I'm sure that delving into the nature of belief is extra disturbing to some, since it akin to disbelieving one's own thoughts, but hopefully by becoming a higher spectator of those thoughts, which is truly easier said than done.

 

The OP goes to the heart of the Creator’s Being being impossible as fundamental because of what ‘a being’ implies, which is a system of understanding information and applying it to the original creation of the entire Cosmos. Complexity would seem made of less and lessor complexity unto more and more simplicity, it ever dependent on what composes it, so it cannot be First, creating all else

A mindless, brute force ‘creator’ could be something like a quantum superposition of every possible path, some of the paths amounting to something great and continuing on, but then what collapses the wave function? So, this mystical proposal of science is really here nor there either, but I’m getting at that it seems necessary that God is a being, not just the laws of physics. Beings have conscious intent and the notion of God is presented as the ultimate Being, thinking out, planning, and creating the universal particulars that would function, which are quite specific and particular.

This God didn’t create anything. What did He do and how did He get there?

So, humans came about naturally.

Not for me, and what’s to say that thinking about God just makes it seems like God is there?

You didn’t say anything about how the do-nothing God could or could not be.

All kinds of beliefs are possible but it doesn’t then mean that the subject is possible.

It is being argued that he didn't.

Great!

I'm not basing anything on these disciplines.

That's not a disproof, but an examination of how belief can take one over to the point of seeing nothing but that.


Some other exchanges were completed between other responders.

 

A passive God didn't and doesn't have the capacity to create anything.
Your question does not follow, in that case.

And I didn't say anything about how humans or other animals could or could not be. Why is that a requirement?

 

If I'm not interested in talking to somebody, I generally don't ask them questions.

 

A quick opinion about God:

God is an absolute. He (God) by the way, is the same thing as an absolute unicorn in a gravitational state of flux Zero Gravational absolutism, and is percieved as Creator, Cream Cheeze (Cream Cheeze of the corn, not however cream cheeze of the Milk in any particular type of Juices). So God can't be not considered as a creator.

God is a temporal flux absolute first starter, so visual apparatus in respect to him is the same thing- absolute. He doesn't change or move, so when we percieve him indefinately there is fiction sure involved in the defination, - but it isn't so quaincy, it's either motivational or quick- but he's a slow- as in an absoluet divine dwelling "entity" that you're 'discussing.

Now as far as I can see, being an "absolute" without not being an a bsolute really absolves him into the infinitys of different possible ways of conceptions- he aint a slow particle driving his nuts at forty miles per hour.

To "Prove" God exists, cannot and willnot, require the first bit of "proof" Because if he's an absolute he is or can be considered as a logical absolute but he may not be considered to dwell in any other forms of divine comprehensions.

I wouldn't know what to say o ther than that people could first prove him....

He's also based on faith, but with what I said "first" and "before hand" it would be hard to prove him based o n the arguementation that I made (FIRST) in this post.

 

For requiring the stone to be squeezed before anything comes out... yours entirely.
For having to take 3 or 4 posts for you to explain yourself when you could have said what you meant in your first post... yours entirely.
For being blinkered regarding the applicability or otherwise of an argument to material and/or non-material... yours entirely.

For STILL NOT providing a suitable term for things that aren't matter (given your distaste for "non-matter")... yours entirely.

So - are you going to bother actually explaining your position, as others have the decency to do with their positions - or are you going to rest on not wanting to explain yourself to "the likes of me"?

 

Don't know what you were trying to squeeze but its certainly not my post.

I said straight out that he was talking about reductionist thought and also said straight out that you were when you brought up the subject of systems.

I figure that if I keep saying "its only applicable to reductionist thought" you might understand something.
Perhaps its a vain hope ...

Oh you mean this?

Probably because you were looking for a term to fit in with "systematizing"

Already have.
Several times in fact.

eg

1. actually I am contending that discussing things in terms of systems and matter (or even non-matter if we want to get all salady) are ineffective terms for discussing anything but the reductionist view
   
2. the point is that devising the discussion in terms of systems and constituents doesn't take the topic outside the reductionist paradigm
   
3. Because discussing things in terms of systems and their constituents is the nuts and bolts of reductionist thinking.
   
4. Its more that classifying things strictly in terms of systems and their constituents doesn't define things essentially above their constituents
   
5. IOW if you insist on defining things according to parts that make them up (and attribute any higher function of a said object as a consequence of those parts) you don't have a context that allows anything but reductionist thought
   
6. I think its pretty clear to everyone that you can't define , explain or straight out have a system unless you have parts. IOW bringing in "systems" is just another aspect of reductionism

Can you see a common theme within all these?

 

What do you intend the word 'fundamental' to mean there?

Temporally initial? That which most truly exists? Simplest kind of component in some reductive sense? Ultimate explanatory principle?

How does "a being" imply "a system of understanding information"? You seem to be dening any possibility of non-sentient being, which I suspect isn't your intention at all.

That looks like an assertion of reductionism. It may indeed be a valid philosophical intuition, but it's going to need some additional discussion and justification.

Why not? That needs some argument. Why can't complexity be temporally initial, ontologically basic, "fundamental", "First" or whatever? Certainly the possibility of complexity seems to be something like that, since complexity is what we do in fact observe to exist.

I'm not entirely sure why imagining the hypothetical fundamental principles (which we may or may not want to call "God") being impersonal would imply that they account for the universe through "brute force". I sense an implicit value judgement in there.

The analogy between a universal wave-function that represents a superposition of all possibilities, and the ancient Neoplatonic concept of the One, is kind of cool though. In both cases, the appearance and evolution of the observed universe could be imagined as kind of a crystalization process in which individual possibilities begin to actualize into material realities. We would still need to account for time and for its past-future assymetry in that kind of scheme.

As to what "collapses the [universal] wave function" (or why there would even be one in the first place), I don't have the faintest idea.

So God is both necessary and simultaneously impossible?

That's a problem.

 

You, LG. You are the one being squeezed, in an effort to get you to explain yourself. And still we squeeze.

First, as already explained, I was merely explaining the OP... and it was the OP that brought up the subject of systems.
Second, it is the fact that all you said was akin to "this is reductionist thinking" WITHOUT explanation... and it is this lack of explanation (here and generally with your posts) for which the stone is being squeezed.

So you are openly arrogant - fair enough. But when someone asks you to explain yourself you should still have the decency to provide the explanation... ideally without the need to squeeze.
Also bear in mind that the person asking might already understand and is asking for the benefit of the thread in general.

Surprisingly, LG, I am STILL looking for you to provide the word that you would rather we use in place of "non-matter", given your distaste of that word. Up for offering one yet? :shrug:

After the stone was squeezed, and hardly to any satisfaction.

No explanation here, just a rewording of your issue.

No explanation here, just a rewording of your issue.

No explanation here, just a rewording of your issue.
(Getting the general gist of the problem with your responses yet?)

Well, finally you did start to actually explain, after so much tortuous squeezing. Although you're still merely saying "this is reductionist" but go no further... for example: what is it about the reductionist view expressed in the OP that makes it inapplicable. Why is God not reducible, and how do you explain that God is able to do things without being a system? What word would you use to define/describe what he does if he is NOT a system?
i.e. Feel free to actually explain yourself... it is, afterall, a discussion forum.

Other than your reluctance to actually provide explanation, and seem to think that rewording your initial complaint is satisfactory in this regard...? :shrug:

 

Seconded.

 

Seconded.

I think he meant that God is necessarily a being, not something impersonal/non-personal, like the laws of physics.

Some people say "God is the law," "God is a force," or "God is love" which are impersonalist conceptions.
SciWritter is actually agreeing with many theists, in that God, if He were any kind of a real god, would have to be a being, a person, and not something to the effect of

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Rav -

You asked me
"Why does God exist?"

My reply to this is still this -

SciWriter -


I would still like you to reply to this post:

 

How do you understand time?

Then so did their thoughts about God being the creator, complexity coming first, and such.

Per you, they came about naturally, though. So you cannot really object to those beliefs, whatever they may be.

Of course, one could argue that your objection came about naturally as well.
But in such a situation, where everything is deemed as "having come about naturally," notions of right and wrong, true and false, relevant and irrelevant, good and bad - become irrelevant and the discussion becomes irrational.
Or, notions of "came about naturally" cancel eachother out, so we're back at the bare statements again.

Okay. So you are requested to provide more explanations of your stance, as Yazata and I have been asking.

 

Yes, all of these, the simplest, bottommost component(s) from which all higher forms can be formed, the basis of all, the foundation of existence. It can only be from nothing or forever existence.

For the concept of God, we have that the entity was forever intact and already defined and made without ever having been defined and made, which could lead to another disproof, even of something so simple as an electron not being able to have been there forever.

It has the know-how to create a Cosmos, so it knows in some way.

Complexity is observed to exist, and we also observe it to have components.

It’s just saying that it is still consistent to view the concept of God as a Being with intent to create the Cosmos rather than the Cosmos being a completely natural happenstance.